Should the AGS community hire a paid full time coder?

[Jack]

Unless I misread it, CW's "I give up" is about his frustration maintaining an old code base, when it is a refactor that is needed.

So how about it, Crimson Wizard. If you are compensated for your time, and there are clearly defined goals and milestones, would you be interested in taking on the project of rewriting AGS, or even just to compose a technical document on the functioning of AGS for future developers?

I have no say, so this is not a job offer. But we have not established whether you personally would be interested, if the terms were to your satisfaction.

I think whether or not we should and can generate the cash is no longer relevant. After monetary contributions from within the community, we can do bake sale on bake sale until we hit our number.

[Dave Gilbert]

Well put Radiant.
I have no problem at all in putting my trust on the decisions made by CW and the rest of the active engine and editor devs, plus the knowledge of modern needs of Dave Gilbert.

Just need to say that it's Janet Gilbert who has this knowledge. I just have the arduous task of tweeting about the engine updates when they are made.

[Andail]

This isn't really my table - I likely won't even program my own games in the future - just wanted to say that I'm also willing to chip in if we need to pay someone to maintain AGS.

I do think it sounds a bit strange that there can't be a middle ground between $0 (which we pay now) and $50,000 (which is Dave's estimate), but whatever we decide to pay I'll pay my share.

Cheerio.

PS:
Also, a huge thank you to CW for everything he's done to this point!

[miguel]

Sorry about that Dave, . Janet Gilbert knowledge of what a modern engine requires to thrive is our best reference possible. And what is your opinion Dave, what would you like AGS to become for next Xmas? What engine would you like AGS to be "on top of".

[Dave Gilbert]

I do think it sounds a bit strange that there can't be a middle ground between $0 (which we pay now) and $50,000 (which is Dave's estimate), but whatever we decide to pay I'll pay my share.

I mean, that's just an estimate based on the amount of work required and the going rate for a professional full-time coder (who can get it done in a reasonable amount of time). Mileage may vary, as these things do.

[Ali]

If $50,000 is a moderate estimate of what would be needed, it's not an utterly ridiculous target for a Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign.

We shouldn't just look around the AGS forums and see who is prepared to chip in. A modern AGS would appeal to more people - all the artists, writers and coders who drop in here because they like adventure games, but then decide that the engine is too retro for them. And some gamers, who want to see Dave and others keep developing great adventure games without the aesthetic and technical limitations AGS imposes.

The project wouldn't necessarily have to be led by the main coder. It could be one person or a committee, but someone would need to set out a clear vision for the project. (Although it's well meaning, I don't think it's fair to start volunteering other people.)

Perhaps it would be better to ask what people can volunteer besides money and see what resources AGS has at its disposal. As I mentioned before, I'd volunteer to help when it comes to fundraising.

[Crimson Wizard]

Unless I misread it, CW's "I give up" is about his frustration maintaining an old code base, when it is a refactor that is needed.

No.
It was a frustration of making wrong choices and wasting lots of time doing wrong things.
I was not just maintaining old code base, I was refactoring and changing it too. Perhaps not fast enough, but I was.
But refactoring is not magic. It helps seeing what code does and adding new things, but it cannot fix core problems; it cannot fix the fact that AGS is based on outdated framework, it cannot magically port it to other platforms.

[cat]

$50,000 will give you a full-time developer for a year. This is the minimum that will be needed for writing a new engine.
The last bake-sale brought what - 2000-3000$ maybe?

I agree with Radiant: We first have to decide where we want to go.

What is so special about AGS it not the engine, but the community. So whatever decision is made, it should be in the interest of the community.

[Peder 🚀]

The last bake-sale brought what - 2000-3000$ maybe?

$1121.48 before PayPal fees.

[selmiak]

good for some 'fast food'. I want mine extra hot

[Jack]

Always with you it cannot be done.

$1121.48 was raised after the second bake sale was extended, the original having raised $1025.59. That was with, what, 4 games?

Bake Sale I made $4191.98.

What about making each month's MAGS bundle a pay-what-you-want, like a monthly bake sale, which is already organised and running?

[Atavismus]

What about making each month's MAGS bundle a pay-what-you-want, like a monthly bake sale, which is already organised and running?

Better keep MAGS free imo.
But as I said, some commercial games (steam keys) could be unlock when a certain amount is paid or stuffs like that (it would rise the value of the bundle so the sales).

To be true, I'm not afraid of money, we can do it.

The most difficult to set imo is the project:
- update what we have?
- rewrite everything that has to be rewritten?
- start from scratch?
- keep the AGS editor and make a new engine?
- AGS as a toolkit for Unity?
- Use SCUMMVM?
- Or whatever: I don't know enough about the tech side to know what makes sense or not, but we have people here who are able to do so, I would like to hear them.

[Baron]

So it's decided then: 15 Bake Sales!   I'll call Ponch.

[Atavismus]

I discussed with CW and here is how he is sorting our options (I quote him):

There are 3 options:
1. Keep current code and improve it further;
2. Take existing engine and modify it to run AGS games;
3. Write completely new engine from scratch, which
  a) meant to run AGS games;
  b) meant to run more advanced games, but can emulate AGS games as well

I do not think dropping AGS Editor is an option, because if there is something that binds community, it is the first.
The Editor IS AGS.
Or rather the type of game creation workflow.

I totally agree with the editor point.

Could option 2 be a kind of medium way?
Keep the editor, choose an engine and tie them together?

[Slasher]

Above everything else i must commend highly the people that have worked so very hard improving the capabilities of AGS.. and unpaid..

They have looked at the nuts and bolts, toyed with them, made changes to them all in the sake of improvement.

Whilst some of these improvements are greatly welcomed there are costs that at times can't be paid.

Most of us could sit down and write a thousand things we would like AGS to be.. but then we don't have to tinker with the engine, do we?

When Chris first made the AGS engine he made it apt for the time and no one questioned it. But over time people wanted more and more that pushed the Editor to further limits. Chris had done his job: But now was the time for new blood to take the reins and make the beast roar louder.

I think for one guy to stand alone is far too much to comprehend. Now as a team that would be a different matter, provided they all had the same goals and could work very well together with great knowledge.

I say this because no matter how good a 'brought in' coder is he is not worth a bag of salt if he does not have the heart of AGS within him or the fundamental workings or what gaming is all about. It would be far too much if he lacked these elements.. of course money helps but that is not always the case for success.

As each Beta is made so the engine is being tested for new improvements and additions.

I think the open source is a good idea but too many cooks....

So before hiring anyone just make sure they have all the right qualities required to bring AGS forward into the 21st century...but it would be at a price...


Just my view

[doimus]

I discussed with CW and here is how he is sorting our options (I quote him):

There are 3 options:
1. Keep current code and improve it further;
2. Take existing engine and modify it to run AGS games;
3. Write completely new engine from scratch, which
  a) meant to run AGS games;
  b) meant to run more advanced games, but can emulate AGS games as well

I do not think dropping AGS Editor is an option, because if there is something that binds community, it is the first.
The Editor IS AGS.
Or rather the type of game creation workflow.

I totally agree with the editor point.

Could option 2 be a kind of medium way?
Keep the editor, choose an engine and tie them together?

I'd go with either 1) or 3).
The middle ground is neither here or there as you'd have to work around both the AGS quirks and that other engine's quirks. And engines do have quirks.

Regarding option 1) - It's the most feasible especially if it involves outsourced refactoring. Literally hiring a developer or company to forensically refactor the current code to a more modern, multiplatform code. There are companies out there that port old software to modern platforms. SDL2 library was designed with this exact purpose in mind, among other things.
Feature wise, it's handing them AGS 3.4 and they hand back the ported AGS 3.5. End user sees little difference except all their stuff now works on many platforms. Workflow remains the same.
The obvious question is: How much?

As for the start-from-scratch approach in option 3), this is a more of a design issue than anything else and design is a tricky subject based on my limited experience in professional gamedev world. You just can't outsource design and expect good results back. Compared to the opt.1 where you essentially know exactly what features the code should have, when you outsource the code-less design phase, it's a money pit, a pandora's box that's better left closed.
The not so obvious questions in this case are: How? Who? When? etc...

Now, in case you have modern and modular code base from opt1 then it's much easier to consider other design issues and add new features.

[Jack]

I do not think dropping AGS Editor is an option, because if there is something that binds community, it is the first.
The Editor IS AGS.
Or rather the type of game creation workflow.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've heard that a piece of software shouldn't be updated out of sentimentalism.

The editor is adequate, but it could be optimized, meaning less time wasted, and overall a better experience.

For the record.

[Crimson Wizard]

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've heard that a piece of software shouldn't be updated out of sentimentalism.

I did not say it should not be updated. I said it should not be dropped.

Also, I am probably one person who does not have any sentiments about AGS at all.
My "is AGS" remark was not refering to sentiments, it was refering to the fact that a lot of people got used to particular game creation workflow (types of objects, their relevance, way to script them).

[Jack]

For the record means I recognise my opinion is that of a noob here.

I agree that the AGS editor should not be completely dropped, I do think it should be redesigned and rewritten.

[Atavismus]

Damn , this is so annoying I am literally shaking irl now. This quote was taken from the random private chat, for god sake. If I were posting this on forums, I would explain it in more detail to prevent misinterpretation.

Mate, don't worry, all is fine, no big deal.
(Mind, I asked you if I could quote you and you accepted.)

Let's progress.

We have 3 ways, should I make poll?
Maybe some people who trust more on an option could defend it here?
Time to be constructive.